How is “Woord en Getuienis” different from other Translations?

There is a significant number of verses in Woord en Getuienis that are translated slightly differently when compared with the majority of translations that are available today. This is over and above the more stylistic changes like changes in the names of people and places and other proper names (in order to reflect the original words and pronunciation as correctly as possible). The majority of the non-stylistic differences will be found in the New Covenant or Messianic Scriptures (New Testament). It is a known fact that the various available manuscripts containing texts relating to the Old Covenant Scriptures, are relatively unanimous and agree largely with one another. However, the same can definitely not be said with regards to the New Covenant or Messianic Scriptures.

Some scholars estimate that there are far more than 200 000 textual variants in the New Covenant Scriptures alone – that is, more than 200 000 instances where one or more manuscripts differ from other manuscripts on a certain verse or part of a verse or even a group of verses. Some of these manuscripts are very old – up to 1800 years old, while others are much "younger" – some less than a 1000 years old. Sometimes a decision as to what reading should be considered to be the true, original reading can be made on grounds of the age of the manuscripts alone (older manuscripts are generally considered to be more reliable than younger manuscripts).

There are instances, however, where a decision cannot be made on grounds of age alone. There may be different readings coming from various manuscripts that do not differ significantly as far as age is concerned. In such cases there are a number of other conditions and factors that need to be taken into consideration, in order to come to a good and reliable translation. Over the last 40 odd years scholars have done very valuable research and groundwork in this regard and the outcome of this work is invaluable for anyone who becomes involved with the translation of Scriptures.

It has to be said, however, that even this important research that has been done in the field of textual variants over the last couple of decades, is NOT enough to fully equip a translator to come to a proper and reliable translation. There is still a great number of variant readings out there, with regards to which even the best scholars are not in agreement. There are still many suggestions being made by scholars, that come to us in a cloud of uncertainty, because the scholars themselves have put a small (and sometimes even a very big) question mark behind what they believe to be "the best translation". In other words, we need to be honest enough to admit that even the best translations today will most probably not be without a certain degree of error.

And then, perhaps the most important "gray area" as far as the results of the scholarly work in this field is concerned: these results are mainly based upon grammatical considerations and the identification of so-called "unintentional scribal errors". One gets the idea that most modern-day scholars have made up their minds that the early scribes have all been extremely negligent and careless in the task of preserving the original texts and were hardly able to rewrite a single chapter of Scriptures without making a fair number of oversight and misreading mistakes. This, of course, is only an assumption and may not be true at all.

Very seldom do the findings of modern-day textual scholars reflect possible changes that some of the earlier scribes may have forced upon the texts intentionally for doctrinal or theological reasons. This is the case, even though scholars are aware of at least a number of instances where earlier scribes have changed texts deliberately. The so-called "Comma Johanneum" of 1 John 5:7-8 is the most well-known example of such an intentional scribal change to a text for the sake of lending credibility and Scriptural support to the Trinity doctrine. Today there is hardly anyone who will dispute the fact that the translation of 1 John 5:7-8 as it is reflected in Bibles like the King James Version and the Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling (1933 and 1953), is NOT correct and that the original text did not, in fact, say anything at all that may support a trinity viewpoint.

Category 1. Let us in this category reflect on some of the verses in WeG where a choice has been made for a certain reading that does not agree with the translation in some popular Bibles, but does reflect the most recent findings of scholarly research in the field of textual variants and the comparison of these variants. When studying the additions and/or omissions in this category, one can easily see that NO obvious doctrinal or theological factors were involved in these changes and that the variations between the manuscripts may probably be attributed to "honest changes" on the part of the early scribes.

Mat 6:4 (WeG): "Jou Vader wat in die verborgene sien, Hy sal jou beloon … (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: RSV and NIV).

Mat 6:4 (KJV): "Thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly (or: in the open)…"

Comment: The words “in the open” are absent from the oldest manuscripts of several types of ancient text. It seems that they were added at a later stage to make the contrast with “in secret” stand out more clearly.

Mat 22:30 (WeG): "Maar hulle is soos boodskappers in die hemel …" (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: NAS and NCV).

Mat 22:30 (KJV): "But they are as the angels of God in heaven …"

Comment: The words "of God" are missing from manuscripts of several types of ancient text and it is possible that they were added at a later stage to make this passage agree with the wording of Mark 12:25.

Category 2. In this category we shall look at a couple of examples where WeG reflect a translation that does not agree with some of the other translations, does not agree with the findings of (some of the) scholars in the field of textual variants, but does agree with the readings found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. In these cases the scholars had to compare various readings that did not differ significantly from one another as far as age and reliability is concerned and could therefore only come up with an "educated guess" as to what the original reading was. The choices being made in the translation of WeG in cases like these, were mainly based upon factors like the immediate, as well as the wider context in which a particular verse is set, together with the combined testimony of the rest of Scriptures.

John 1:18 (WeG): "Niemand het ooit Elohiem gesien nie; die eniggebore Seun wat in die boesem van die Vader is, Hy het Hom verklaar. (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: KJV, ASV and SCR).

John 1:18 (ISV): "No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father’s side, has revealed him."

Comment: Both readings ("only begotten Son" and "unique God") appear in various old manuscripts but, in line with the majority of other translations, WeG have chosen the first translation, based upon the fact that this is in total agreement with verses like John 3:16; John 3:18; John 5:23; John 5:26; John 6:27; John 10:36; John 14:13; John 17:1; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 4:10 and 1 John 5:11, written by the same author. Notice also, how the text of the rest of the verse needed to be slightly changed in translations that have chosen NOT to use the words "the only begotten Son": "unique" in stead of "only begotten"; "close to" in stead of "in the bosom" and "the Father’s side" in stead of "the Father".

1 Tim 3:16 (WeG): "En, onteenseglik, groot is die verborgenheid van ware toewyding, Hy wat geopenbaar is in die vlees, is geregverdig in die Gees, gesien deur boodskappers, verkondig onder die heidene, geglo in die wêreld, opgeneem in voortreflikheid." (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: NIV, ASV, LEB).

1 Tim 3:16 (KJV): "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Comment: In this case, many scholars today agree that some of the early scribes have changed the Greek word for "He who …" to "theos" (meaning "Elohim"). This constitutes the difference between (a) "He who was manifested in the flesh … " (implying Y’shua, the Son) and (b) "God was manifested in the flesh …". In the Greek these two variants are almost identical and one can understand that this was seen as yet another opportunity to provide added support for the Trinity viewpoint. However, to change the text to "God was manifested in the flesh" would not only be an injustice to the text at hand, it would also stand in sharp contrast with the rest of Scriptures, where it is stated many times that Y’shua (or the Messiah) is the One who was manifested in the flesh, or came in the flesh – not Yahweh or "Elohim" or "Theos" or "God" (see Luk 24:39; Rom 1:3; Rom 8:3; Rom 9:5; 2 Cor 5:16; Gal 4:4; Eph 2:15; Col 1:22; Heb 5:7; 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7).

The following abbreviations for various translations have been used:

ASV American Standard Version
CJB The Complete Jewish Bible
DBY Darby Translation
ISV International Standard Version
KJV King James Version
LEB Lexham English Bible
NAS New American Standard Version
NCV New Century Version
NIV New International Version
OAV Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling (1933)
RSV Revised Standard Version
SCR The Scriptures
WEB Word English Bible
WeG Woord en Getuienis
WNT Weymouth New Testament

This entry was posted in Scriptures. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to How is “Woord en Getuienis” different from other Translations?

  1. Charles Boardman says:

    Thank-you John for the posting.

    May I share some thoughts with our readers?

    I would like to build on your comments:
    In the Pre-Messianic scriptures from Bereshith to 2 Divre ha Yamin (2 Chronicles) we read and learn about a Mighty one that is “Echad” (Debarim 6:4)

    Yet many people share the opinion of a “trinity God”
    What changed between the last scroll in the so called “Old testament” and the first scroll in the “New testament”?

    You can not defend Sunday worship with reference to Scripture.
    How can one use Scripture to support something that is in contradiction and not supported by Scripture itself?

    The same goes for the trinity: how can one use Scripture to support something that is not supported by Scripture?

    We all know where the trinity idea and doctrine comes from.
    The trinity idea did not surface until at least 300 years a.M.

    In your introduction you said “we need to be honest enough to admit that even the best translations today will most probably not be without a certain degree of error”

    With this in mind, thank you for W&G and the efforts made to bring us an accurate account of the word of Yahweh.

    Yochanan ben Avraham
    (Charles Boardman)

  2. John says:

    Charles, I agree that Scriptures should never be (ab)used to “prove” something that is contrary to what is clearly taught in the rest of Scriptures. The question that some may ask, however, is how ordinary people are supposed to know which verse is translated (or understood) correctly and which incorrectly, in those cases where it seems that two verses are contradicting each other. I do not pretend to have the full answer to this question, but one criterion would be to try to establish a number of simple, clear-cut, unambiguous truths, each of which are well supported and confirmed by a number of testimonies, verses and even chapters from the combined Scriptures. Like, as you have mentioned, the truth that Yahweh is “echad” or one (in the most basic sense of the word). These “truths” should form the backbone of each translation and a general guideline whenever uncertainties arise in the process of translating or understanding Scriptures. Certainly, there are many other criteria to be considered, but this one, I feel, is quite important.

  3. Victor says:

    Thank you for the post John.

    I would like to ask a few questions and make a few comments about it.
    When was the last major revision of Woord en Getuienis?
    Is it available in electronic format for readers?
    Is it still largely based on the Afrikaanse Ou Vertaling 1933/53 or has there been a move away from that base?

    As this post is about the nature of “Woord en Getuienis”, it could be helpful if some things regarding the general translation method is mentioned.
    Because the “WeG” editions I am familiar with, was largely based on the OAV, the translation method is also very similar to the OAV.
    When translating from one language to another there are basically three different translation methods and principles (with various subdivisions among them), that is one of the reasons different “Bible translations” read differently.
    The other reason different versions read differently is because the source texts used for the translation may be different.

    The translation method of “WeG” was mostly based on the “literal translation” method, also known as the “Formal equivalent” method. This method aims to translate the original source text in a literal word for word way, allowing of course for differences in sentence structure between languages.
    Translations like the “1983 Afrikaans Nuwe Vertaling” and the “NIV” for example, are based on another method called “Dynamic Equivalence”. This method aims at translating ideas or thoughts rather than literal words, figuring that languages are made up of larger units than words. e.g. clauses and phrases. This method unfortunately leans heavily on the translator’s ability to understand the source language and target language, and is more subjective than the Formal Equivalence method, thus if the translator doesn’t understand the “idea/thought” correctly, the translation will probably reflect that.
    The third method is called paraphrasing, “The Message” is a good example of this method, it is highly subjective and frankly, dangerous in my opinion.

    So, “WeG” follows mostly the “Literal Translation” method. Other examples of this method is the KJV, NASB, RSV, ESV etc. The following link gives a visual overview of the different translations and where they fall in the method category.

    There are a couple of things John said regarding the Text and certain verses that I would like to get to, but for now I bid you farewell.
    Shalom in Messiah

  4. John says:

    Victor, it is good to hear from someone who has followed the WeG project, since its very beginning, about 7 years ago. As you know, WeG is a translation in progress and with each new edition, minor corrections and changes are introduced, based, among other things, upon improved understanding and increase of knowledge. So, to answer your first question, the last revision (although not “major” in the sense that every single book, or even every chapter, of WeG was scanned) took place in the months leading up to the first half of 2011 when the fourth edition of WeG was printed. It certainly is available in electronic format and those who are interested (exclusively for personal study purposes, please) may contact me and I will gladly email them an electronic copy of WeG in PDF format.

    The translation of WeG is still pretty close to the OAV or Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling (1933/53) and, like you have mentioned, also follows the literal translation method, but it does not necessarily follow OAV in every respect. There are many ways (far too many to specify here) in which WeG differs from OAV and, for that matter, from other translations. In cases where WeG have followed a “different route” of translation, this was always inspired by the principle of representing the original text as accurately and as honestly as possible.

    I notice that you have not given the link with the visual overview of different translations. Maybe the fact that you have posted your comment around 1.30 in the morning has something to do with this slip up (the kind of thing that you would rather expect me to do). :smile:

  5. Victor says:

    Shalom all, and thank you John for the answers.
    I did include the link, :oops: I tried to put it in, using the “link function” on the page, but it seems that it dropped it out in the post. But seeing it was late, I guess I misplaced it.
    Herewith the link that was lost in transmission :glad:

    Because many of the points John made, have to do with text critical issues this is what I would like to comment on next.

    Some scholars estimate that there are far more than 200 000 textual variants in the New Covenant Scriptures alone – that is, more than 200 000 instances where one or more manuscripts differ from other manuscripts on a certain verse or part of a verse or even a group of verses.

    According to leading NT Textual Critic Dr. Daniel B. Wallace “the estimates today are closer to 400,000” variants of the Greek NT.

    That is a very large amount of variants indeed. The Greek NT as we know it today have approximately 138,000 words. “That means on average for every word in the Greek NT there are at least two variants.”(1) This may drive some people to despair, but the situation is not nearly as dire as it may seem at first.
    Why is there so many variants?
    The simple answer is because we have so many Greek NT manuscripts.
    e.g. If we only had one complete Greek NT manuscript, there would be NO variants.
    There are in fact over 5800 complete or fragmented Greek NT manuscripts.
    Under the heading “New Testament manuscripts”.
    That is the reason there are so many variants. So the more manuscripts we find the more variants there will be.
    The following is from the book “Reinventing Jesus” by J. Ed Komoszewski; M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace(1)
    In chapter 4 “Can we trust the New Testament?” that deals with “the quantity and quality of Textual Variants”, on page 55 and 56 a brief overview of the variants are given.
    “The variants can be broken down into the following categories:
    spelling differences and nonsense errors;
    minor differences that do not affect translation or that involve synonyms;
    differences that affect the meaning of the text but are not viable; and
    differences that both affect the meaning of the text and are viable.”
    They then explain each category. Finally coming to the end of the chapter and producing a pie chart with these 4 categories as pieces.
    I can’t reproduce the pie chart but I will try and give it a fair division.
    1 = Spelling errors. Well over half of the variants (Almost three quarters) consist of this category.
    2 = variants that do not affect translation. The next biggest pie is this one. (It is about 3/8ths)
    3 = meaningful, but not viable variants. This piece of the pie is about 1/8th of the variants.
    4 = meaningful and viable variant. The last and smallest piece of the pie chart.
    On page 60 the writers state. “The final — and by far the smallest — category consists of variants that are both meaningful and viable. Only about 1 percent of all textual variants fit this category. But even here the situation can be overstated. By “meaningful” we mean that the variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. It may not be terribly significant, but if the variant affects our understanding of the passage, then it is meaningful.”

    So in short, even when we have this huge number of variants, close to 400,000. Only about 1 percent of these variants are the things that can affect our Scriptures. But even then it very rarely will affect core doctrines. :smile:
    (People interested in textual criticism can also look at the following links)

    I will hopefully soon continue with more comments.
    Shalom in Messiah

  6. Ann says:

    So verskriklik vreeslik jammer dat SuidA frikaners skaam geword het om hulle taal te praat.
    Julle bespreek dan die Afrikaanse weergawe “Woord en Getuienis” maar julle praat Engels…

    So Jammer!!

  7. John says:

    Victor, thanks for some very useful information. Ann, the reason why I have introduced this discussion in English, and not Afrikaans, is to be as inclusive as possible. There are English speaking visitors to our Blog, some of whom live in countries outside of South Africa, who also take an interest in the translation of Woord en Getuienis. I love my home language, but this is not about me and my own preferences … Please feel free, however, to send your comments to this post in Afrikaans and if a response is needed, I’ll gladly do it in Afrikaans.

    I would like to continue with the original post at the top of this page and add one more category to the two that were discussed there, already. So, in a sense then, the topic of what follows, is:

    How is “Woord en Getuienis” different from other Translations and why? (Part 2)

    (Please refer to the list of abbreviations of various translations at the end of the original post)

    Category 3. Here we shall look at variants that are not based upon questions like the age of documents or the findings of modern-day scholarship, but are all related to the fact that certain verses can legitimately be translated in two (or even three) different ways. In these cases WeG often reflect a not so popular translation that does, however, honour the immediate and wider context, as well as all relevant grammatical principles, and does not become entrapped in dogmatic patterns and concepts.

    2 Pet 1:1 (WeG): "Shiemón Kefa, ‘n dienskneg en apostel van Y’shua die Messias, aan die wat net so ‘n kosbare geloof as ons ontvang het deur die geregtigheid van ons Elohiem en van die Verlosser, Yahshua die Messias." (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: ASV, WNT).

    2 Pet 1:1 (WEB): "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ"

    Comment. Sad to say, but the majority of translations have opted to translate this verse in a way that portrays Y’shua the Messiah both as Saviour and as Elohim (or "God"). This, despite the fact that Greek constructions like the one here, starting with the words "the righteousness …" and following the pattern "the A of B and C" are elsewhere in the Messianic Scriptures frequently translated to mean: "the A of B and the A of C" (with the understanding that B and C are two different entities or persons). The very next verse of this chapter is a clear example of this usage of the Greek construction: "the knowledge (A) of Elohim (B) and Y’shua our Master (C)" is translated correctly by the very same WEB: "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" (with the understanding that this is a twofold knowledge, involving two beings). Notice the inconsistency between the translation of the first verse and that of the second. Notice also the fact that when the same apostle uses the word "theos" or "Elohim" elsewhere in the same chapter and the rest of this letter, this word always refers to the Father, and never once to the Son (1:17; 1:21; 2:4; 3:5 and 3:12).

    Tit 2:13 (WeG): "Terwyl ons die geseënde hoop en die verskyning van die voortreflikheid van die grote Elohiem en van ons Verlosser, Y’shua die Messias verwag." (Translations, among others, that are in agreement with WeG: ASV, KJV, SCR).

    Tit 2:13 (ISV): "As we wait for the blessed hope and the glorious appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

    Comment: Once more, the majority of translations have blossomed in their efforts to translate the Trinity into this verse and are mostly in agreement with the ISV, quoted above. The natural and most logical way to read the sentence in Greek is to understand that what we are waiting for is a blessed hope and a revelation of some kind of splendour. This splendour belongs to, or relates to, the great Elohim … AND to our Saviour, Y’shua the Messiah. This is, more or less, how this sentence is translated in WeG, ASV, KJV and SCR. The majority of other translations, however, have introduced a clever twist and have made sure that the hope and splendour (or "glory") that we are looking forward to, cannot belong or relate to both Elohim (Yahweh) and to the Messiah, but, instead, can belong to one entity only: "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ". In the light of the fact that such a formulation is stretching the Greek wording to its extreme limits and is totally out of character when compared to the way Shaúl normally utilises the concepts of "elohim" and "messiah", we have no other option than to conclude that these "one entity" translations have all been influenced and inspired by the typical Trinity way of thinking and reflect an all-too-easy acceptance of a phrase and a way of referring to Y’shua that appears nowhere else in Scriptures.

  8. Pierre says:

    Hi John
    Ek hoop nie jy gee om oor my Afrikaans nie, ek sukkel nog bietjie met die Engelse “tenses”.
    Ek het nie jou Afrikaanse weergawe gelees nie, maar lei af (soos jy dit self stel), dat dit baie na aan die Ou Afrikaanse vertaling is. My vraag aan jou is uiters opreg bedoel en ek sal graag jou mening oor sekere teksverse wil hoor. Ekself het begin lees uit Scriptures sowel as Hebrew Roots. Ek kom daagliks op skrikwekkende mis-vertalings af en wil ‘n paar deel. Indien jy bewus is hiervan en ook jou Afrikaanse weergawe daarvolgens aangepas het, ignoreer dan my skrywe.

    “Scriptures” noem die slang wat Eva verlei het, die Nahash (Nachash). Dit is totaal ‘n ander betekenis as “slang of serpent”. Inteendeel, slange vreet nie stof nie, maar eiers en muise. Die feit dat so gestel is deur Vader, is om te wys na hoe laag satan gedaal het. Dus moet die mense nou ophou om die arme slange se koppe plat te slaan.

    Die Afrikaanse Bybel stel Markus 16:9 as volg: “en nadat Hy opgestaan het, vroeg op die eerste dag van die week….” Baie Goedgelowige kerkgangers gebruik hierdie vers om Sondag aanbidding te regverdig. Die Hebrew Roots stel dit so: “And having risen and now, early on the first of the Sabbath count to Shauvot…..” Hierdie is darm gevaarlike misleiding in die Afrikaanse weergawe.
    Nog ‘n voorbeeld is in Gen 19:26. “en sy vrou het agter hom omgekyk, en sy het in ‘n soutpilaar verander”. Indien ons enigiemand sou vra, hoekom Lot se vrou omgekyk het, sal die algemene antwoord wees, “sy het terug verlang na Sodom”. Die teendeel is egter bewys in die Hebrew Roots…”she turned back WITH PLEASURE”. Hierdie is so ver as wit van swart tov haar rede. Sy het nie terugverlang nie, sy het haarself verlekker in Sodom se oordeel, toevallig teenstrydig met Atonement.
    Nog een, en nou die laaste, kan nog baie noem, maar stop nou maar hier, ander moet ook ‘n kans kry :lol: .
    Job se vrou, volgens die Afrikaanse weergawe, het gesê: (Job 2:9) “Volhard jy nog in jou vroomheid? Seën God en sterf!” (Sjoe, kwaai vrou daai…) Die Hebrew Root het weer totaal ‘n ander betekenis: “And his wife said to him, Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Curse Elohim and die! (sjoe, nou is sy vrou sommer Godslasterlik ook)

    John, hierdie is die tipe dinge wat ek voel reggestel moet word. Indien jy het, NICE, indien jy nog nie op sulke goed afgekom het nie, ondersoek dit ook. Dit is betekenisloos om slegs die Name te herstel. Baie “oorstappers” dink om die Hebreeuse Name te gebruik, stel al die misleidings reg. Baie hou nog vas in die heidinse tradisies en voel nie hulle doen verkeerd nie, aangesien hulle nou vir God, as Yahwe aanspreek. Baie noem Hom selfs Elohim, maar besef nie dat dit slegs ‘n Hebreeuse term vir die Afrikaanse “God” is nie. Daarom dat almal so maklik in Joodse tradisies verval. Daarom dat mense so deurmekaar raak met Sionisme en Kabbalisme. Hulle weet nie waar om die lyn te trek nie. Die verandering na die Hebreeuse Afrikaanse weergawe, is net die begin, maar die “verduideliking” is waar die groot werk lê. Ek self is Messiaans, maar skrik my dood wanneer mense bv seëninge in Hebreeus oordra, meeste van hulle self weet nie eens wat hulle sê nie, maar wil so graag “in” wees. Ek glo nie dit was en is Vader se doel om almal Hebreeus te maak nie, hoekom dan is ek in Afrikaans gebore? Vader ken alle tale, Hy het ons tog so gemaak.
    Bottom line, die Woord moet herstel word, dis die belangrikste, nie net die name en titels nie.


  9. John says:

    Pierre, jou bydrae bring baie geldige punte na vore, maar bewys ook hoe belangrik dit is vir ‘n vertaling om die gegewe grondteks so korrek as moontlik weer te gee. Dit is myns insiens nie die vertaler se taak om “moeilike” tekste te interpreteer of te verduidelik nie – die produk is dan nie meer ‘n “vertaling” nie, maar ‘n “kommentaar”. Ons het altwee nodig: vertalings en kommentare (hetsy mondelings of geskrewe) en dit beklemtoon maar net weer die behoefte wat daar bestaan aan goeie en kundige “teachers” wat weet hoe om die Skrif te hanteer en sinvolle kommentaar daarop te lewer, maar ‘n vertaler het ‘n ander taak en moet baie versigtig wees om nie sy eie interpretasie aan ‘n teks te gee nie. Dit is juis wat in die geskiedenis van die oorskryf van die teks van veral die Nuwe Verbond gebeur het en wat grotendeels tot soveel verskillende splinter-manuskripte aanleiding gegee het.

    Ek is nie seker hoekom jy sê “nachash” het totaal ‘n ander betekenis as “slang of serpent” nie. Die woord “nachash” word omtrent 30 keer in die Skrif aangetref en word altyd met die gebruiklike “slang of serpent” vertaal en binne elke konteks blyk hierdie vertaling ook korrek te wees. Dit beteken nie dat daar NIE ‘n ander konnotasie of simboliese betekenis of geïmpliseerde betekenis agter die woord “nachash” in Genesis 3 mag wees nie. Maar die vertaler het nie ‘n keuse nie: hy moet konsekwent wees in sy vertaling en die uitleg en interpretasie van die teks aan ander oorlaat.

    Markus 16:9 se vertaling is ook nie so eenvoudig nie. As ‘n mens die Griekse uitdrukking wat hier voorkom as “the first of the Sabbath count to Shavuot” vertaal, dan moet jy konsekwent wees en dit op sewe of agt ander plekke in die Nuwe Verbond waar dieselfde Griekse uitdrukking voorkom, ook so vertaal. ‘n Deeglike studie van al die gebruike van hierdie uitdrukking in die Nuwe Verbond bevestig dat dit die normale uitdrukking was vir “die eerste dag van die week”. Wat NIE noodwendig beteken dat Y’shua toe eers opgestaan het nie, net dat Hy tóé aan Maria verskyn het en dat hierdie verskyning NA sy opstanding plaasgevind het. Die vertaling “the first of the Shabbat count to Shavuot” is nie ‘n baie akkurate vertaling nie, want die teks sê niks van Shavuot nie. Boonop bring dit ‘n verdere probleem na vore, want as Y’shua VROEG op hierdie SHABBAT opgestaan het beteken dit ook dat Hy nie drie dae en drie nagte (volgens die teken van Jona) in die hart van die aarde was nie.

    Ek kan saamgaan met wat jy oor Gen 19:26 sê. ‘n Mens kan probeer om ‘n beter woord (of woorde) in die plek van “omgekyk” te vind, want soos jy tereg aandui, die Hebreeuse woord dui op ‘n spesiale soort kyk (onder meer: “to regard with pleasure or respect”). Maar dan weer, daar is ook gevalle waar dieselfde woord gebruik word en dit skynbaar NIE hierdie gelade betekenis het nie – byvoorbeeld Elia se dienaar wat na die see gekyk het om te sien of daar nog nie ‘n teken van reën was nie – 1 Kon 18:43.

    In die geval van Job 2:9 is dit weer ‘n kwessie van vertaling versus interpretasie. Die woord in Hebreeus (“barach”) se primêre betekenis is “seën” maar dié woord word soms op ‘n manier gebruik wat op die oog af nader aan “vloek” lê as aan “seën”. ‘n Mens sou hier dalk liewer kon vertaal: “Volhard jy nog in jou toewyding deur Elohiem te seën terwyl jy (besig is om te) sterf?”

    Wat die laaste paragraaf van jou bydrae betref, kan ek jou gerus verseker dat ek dit een honderd persent met jou eens is dat die blote gebruik van Hebreeuse terme en Joodse tradisies absoluut niks bewys nie en dat dit ten diepste die Woord is wat herstel moet word en nie net name en titels nie. Dit is inderdaad wat ons met die Woord en Getuienis projek probeer doen, maar dis ‘n proses wat nog nie afgehandel is nie – om dié rede sê ons nie Woord en Getuienis is volmaak nie en het ons deurlopend insette van buite af nodig.

  10. Sandra Fowler says:

    Hi John

    Ek geniet die W&G baie en gebruik ook die Scriptures van ISR. Ek is nie ‘n vertaler nie maar vergelyk graag die twee boeke as ek ‘n tema bestudeer. Ek gebruik ook Esword en dit so graaf gewees het as W&G ook daarop beskikbaar kon wees. Iets wat my pla is die vertaling van die woord heidene. Soos ek verstaan kan dit op 4 maniere vertaal word en ek haal aan:

    1. Pagans – in reference to heathens, specifically all nations, races or people not serving YHWH as Elohiem:
    1 Cor 12:2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led

    2. “Nations” in reference to a multitude of people, specifically all mankind:

    Acts 17:26 He (YHWH) made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitations.

    3. Nation – in reference to the Judahites, specifically the descendents of the house of Judah, the two southern tribes of Israel:

    Luke 7:3-5….. when he (the centurion) heard about Yhshua, he sent some Judahite elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. And when they (the Judahite elders) hade come to Yhsjua they earnestly entreated Him, saying, “He (the centurion) is worthy for You to grant this to him; for the loves our (Judahite) nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue.”

    This one passage alone repudiates the theory that the word “Gentile” Ethnos always refers to non-Israelite people.

    4. “Gentiles” – in reference to the Israelites, specifically the descendents of the house of Israel, the ten northern tribes of Israel:

    Romans 9:24 …..even whom He (YHWH) also called, not from among Judahites only, but also from among Gentiles.

    The last usage brings us back to Romans 9:23-26. It was in this verse the Judahites were members of the house of Judah only, from either the tribe of Judah or Benjamin. Recognizing that there is more than one application of the word “ethnos” (translated as gentiles in this passage), left us re-examine Romans 9:23-26 and see which of the five interpretations (the four listed above or the one which is usually provided) is the correct choice. According to the context. It is important for us to do so since some of you will question the interpretation and application of #4 above. It would be foolish, if not dishonest, to randomly pick whichever application suits the reader’s personal doctrinal position – the interpretation must fit the context. So what does the context of Romans 9:23-26 prove?

    … even us, whom He (YHWH) also called, not from among Jews (the house of Judah) only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says in Hosea, I will call those who were not My people, “My people,” there they shall called sons of the living God.
    If our reading is limited to just this passage, it is easy to see why most people would presume that the Jews represent all Israel, and he “Gentiles” represent all non-Israelites. We reading the Apostle Paul’s quotation from Hosea, the average Christian naturally thinks that the Gentiles have to be non-Israelite people since they were never Gods people and never considerate His beloved. However, as is the habit of a good teacher Paul gives his reference, the book Hosea. The student who is a good disciple will study Hosea 1 and 2, and pertains to non-Israel people.”

    Ek wil nie te veel aan haal nie. Ek sien die Scriptures gebruik die onderskeiding maar W&G nie. Is daar ‘n rede?

  11. John says:

    Sandra, ons het ‘n (vorige) module van WeG wat op E-sword gelaai kan word, maar soos ek verstaan, werk dit slegs saam met die ouer weergawes van E-sword (wat ek persoonlik nog gebruik) en nie saam met die jongste uitgawe nie. Ons wil probeer om dit reg te stel en ek sal laat weet wanneer dit beskikbaar is. Cobus, as jy hier lees, kan jy dalk help?

    Ek stem saam dat die woord “ethnos” in die Messiaanse Geskrifte nie altyd na die heiden-nasies verwys nie en ek was onder die indruk dat WeG hierdie onderskeid tóg na vore bring. Daar is hoofsaaklik twee woorde in Grieks wat normaalweg met “nasie” of “volk” of “heidene” vertaal word (“ethnos” en “laos”) en die vertaling word meesal deur die konteks bepaal – alhoewel “ethnos” in die meeste gevalle na nie-Joodse nasies verwys (waaronder daar ook nasate van die “tien stamme” sou wees) en “laos” in die meeste gevalle na die Yehudiem (as ‘n duidelik identifiseerbare groep van die eerste eeu ná Messias). Ek is bevrees dat sommiges na my mening die hele “two-house” teorie heeltemal te ver probeer voer en dinge in sommige tekste inlees wat nie daar is nie.

    Miskien moet jy die spesifieke tekste in Woord en Getuienis aanhaal waar jy ‘n vraagteken oor die vetaling het. Ek weet nie of ek iets miskyk nie, maar in die tekste wat jy aangehaal het is WeG se vertaling baie dieselfde as Scriptures s’n.

  12. Andre says:

    Hallo John,
    Ek kry nou ‘n gewetens-aanval wat skrik vir niks! So paar jaar gelede het jy my voorsien met die bron-data van Woord & Getuienis en daaruit het ek ‘n program geskryf wat fokus op die Woord & Getuienis. Ek stuur skerm kapsies daarvan vie e-pos – die Gravatar opsie werk nie te lekker nie. Indien enige iemand belangstel om dit te gebruik is hulle welkom om te laat weet.
    Ek is tans besig met ‘n meer gevorderde weergawe wat ook ander vertalings, waaronder The Scriptures (1998), 1953 Afrikaanse Vertaling en die King James vertaling, insluit.
    Alhoewel die programme nog glad nie versprei is nie is die idee om, met die goedkeuring van kopiereg eienaars, die programme gratis beskikbaar te stel aan belangstellendes. Laat weet maar of iemand dit soek?

  13. Sandra Fowler says:

    Hi John
    Jammer ek riageer nou eers.
    Ek dink waar die ergste verwarring in kom is met hoe mense die 3 woorde “people”, “nations” en “gentiles” of “heathens” vertaal of definieer.

    Ek dink met vertaling moet dit soms mooilik wees om te besluit watter een om te gebruik en dit kan die leeser die gedeelte in ‘n ander perspektief laat verstaan as wanneer ‘n ander persoon dit lees uit ‘n ander vertaling wat dit dan in ‘n ander konteks verstaan. Dit kan ook nie maklik vir ‘n vertaler wees as die griekse woord volgens die GNT TR+ ethnos as synoniem met al 4 woorde sien.


    Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): – Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

    · Meeste mense sien heidene of “gentles” as mense wat nie uit die afstammelinge van Abraham kom nie.
    · “People” of mense is is enige mense
    · ‘n Nasie is ‘n groep mense wat die selfde geloof , gebruike, tradisies gebruik.
    · In Afrikaans het ons een woord vir “Heathen” en “gentile” waar dit in engels verskil.

    As jy kyk na Mat 6:7 dan word daar verwys na mense wat ‘n ander god aanbid en ons moet nie soos hulle bid nie.

    In die GNT TR+ word ethnikos gebruik
    From G1484; national (“ethnic”), that is, (specifically) a Gentile: – heathen (man).

    (Mat 6:7 W+G) En as julle bid, gebruik nie ‘n ydele herhaling van woorde soos die heidene nie, want hulle dink dat hulle deur hul baie woorde verhoor sal word.
    (Mat 6:7 Scriptures) “And when praying, do not keep on babbling like the gentiles. For they think that they shall be heard for their many words.

    In Mat 12:21 word nasies in die Scripures gebruik maar daar word gehou by heidene in W+G soos in die OAV

    (Mat 12:21 AOV8) En op sy Naam sal die heidene hoop.
    (Mat 12:21 W+G) En op sy Naam sal die heidene hoop.
    (Mat 12:21 Scriptures) “And the nations shall trust in His Name.”

    Van die boeke van Shaul is gerig aan die verstrooide skape van Yiesrael. Hier voel ek ons moet eerder nasies as heidene gebruik om die verwarring te voorkom. Dis asof as gevolg van die GNT TR+ ons gedwing word om heiden, nasies en mense as synoniem te sien waar dit heel moontlik nie die geval is nie.

    Efesiërs is duidelik een van die boeke wat vir die verstrooide Yiesraeliete geskryf is. Hier sal ek sê moet eerder nasies gebruik word as heidene.
    Die skrywer kan ook nie woorde insit soos verstrooide Yiesraeliete nie al is dit waarna verwys word. Ek glo maar dat mens na die hele boek moet kyk en nie ‘n mens se eie voorkeure laat oorneem nie. Ek probeer altyd objektief bly en die waarheid te soek.

    (Eph 2:12 W+G) dat julle in dié tyd sonder Messias was, vervreemd van die burgerskap van Yiesraél en vreemdelinge met betrekking tot die verbonde van die belofte, sonder hoop en sonder Elohiem in die wêreld.
    (Eph 2:12 AOV) dat julle in dié tyd sonder Christus was, vervreemd van die burgerskap van Israel en vreemdelinge ten aansien van die verbonde van die belofte, sonder hoop en sonder God in die wêreld.

    (Eph 3:1 W+G) Om hierdie rede is ek, Shaul, die gevangene van die Messias Yahshua vir julle wat heidene is—
    (Eph 3:1 AOV) Om hierdie rede is ek, Paulus, die gevangene van Christus Jesus vir julle wat heidene is—
    (Eph 3:1 Scriptures) Because of this I, Sha’ul, am the prisoner of Y’shua Messiah on behalf of you gentiles –

    (Eph 3:6 W+G) dat die heidene mede-erfgename is en medelede van die liggaam en mededeelgenote aan sy belofte in die Messias deur die belofte
    (Eph 3:6 AOV) dat die heidene mede-erfgename is en medelede van die liggaam en mededeelgenote aan sy belofte in Christus deur die evangelie
    (The Scriptures 1998+) The gentiles to be co-heirs, united in the same body, and partakers together1 in the promise in Messiah through the Good News, Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.

    Volgens Efesiers 3:6 van die Scriptures verwys dit na die takke wat afgebreek is wat dui op die verstrooide Yiesraeliete.

    Rom 11:17 En as sommige van die takke afgebreek is, en jy wat ‘n wilde olyfboom was, onder hulle ingeënt is en deel gekry het aan die wortel en die vettigheid van die olyfboom,
    Rom 11:18 moet dan nie teen die takke roem nie; en as jy roem dit is nie jy wat die wortel dra nie, maar die wortel vir jou.
    Rom 11:19 Jy sal dan sê: Die takke is afgebreek, sodat ek ingeënt kon word.
    Rom 11:20 Goed! Deur ongeloof is hulle afgebreek, maar jy staan deur die geloof. Moenie hoogmoedig wees nie, maar vrees.
    Rom 11:21 Want as God die natuurlike takke nie gespaar het nie, sal Hy miskien jou ook nie spaar nie.
    Rom 11:22 Let dan op die goedertierenheid en die gestrengheid van God: gestrengheid oor die wat geval het, maar goedertierenheid oor jou as jy in die goedertierenheid bly; anders sal jy ook afgekap word.
    Rom 11:23 Maar ook hulle sal, as hulle nie in die ongeloof bly nie, ingeënt word; want God is magtig om hulle weer in te ent.
    Rom 11:24 Want as jy afgekap is van die olyfboom wat van nature wild was, en teen die natuur op die mak olyfboom ingeënt kan word, hoeveel te meer kan hulle dan wat dit van nature is, op hul eie olyfboom ingeënt word?
    Rom 11:25 Want ek wil nie hê, broeders, dat julle hierdie verborgenheid nie moet weet nie, sodat julle nie eiewys mag wees nie: dat die verharding ten dele oor Israel gekom het totdat die volheid van die heidene ingegaan het;
    Rom 11:26 en so sal die hele Israel gered word, soos geskrywe is: Die Verlosser sal uit Sion kom en sal die goddelooshede van Jakob afwend;
    Rom 11:27 en dit is van my kant die verbond met hulle as Ek hulle sondes wegneem.

    Ek sal kyk na nog voorbeelde maar wil nie te lank skryf nie.
    Weereens dankie dat jy ons wat soek na die waarheid help.

  14. David Braham says:

    It would be wonderful if the Afrikaans could be translated to English. It was wonderful to consume the article and comments!


  15. Matt Heyns says:

    Bybel uitleg het ‘n lang geskiedenis maar die ‘geldige’ leestegniese metode ontwyk my. Watter leestegniek word aanbeveel in hierdie bundel se geval aangesien daar so baie leestegnieke ter sprake is.

  16. Matt Heyns says:

    Are you aware that almost all the Messianic prophecies in the NT were written and intended to be taken “allegorically” and not “literally”.

  17. pierre says:

    Is dit moontlik om asseblief vir my WeG in die elektroniese of pdf formaat aan te stuur
    Is die WeG die Afrikaanse weergawe van die Hebraic Roots Bible: A Literal Translation by Don Esposito Baie dankie

  18. John says:

    Pierre, ek stuur vir jou ‘n epos rakende die vraag oor WeG in elektroniese formaat. Woord en Getuienis het geen verbintenis met die Hebraic Roots Bible nie, maar is ook ‘n poging om die Skrif so letterlik en so akkuraat as moontlik weer te gee.

  19. Matt Heyns says:

    Ek verstaan nog nie hoe die oorspronklike name die veranderinge, wat deur tradisies bewerkstellig is en wat met die ander vertalings ingesluip het, uit die weg sal ruim nie. Daar is immers net een Almagtige Een wat ter sprake is. Elke gelowige mag Hom noem wat hy wil, loof, prys en dank op sy eie manier of hoe?

  20. John says:

    Die oorspronklike name is maar net één aspek – Woord en Getuienis is ‘n poging om ander aspekte ook tot hulle reg te laat kom, soos in die oorspronklike artikel in hierdie bespreking gesien kan word. Persoonlik dink ek dis jammer dat daar sovele is wat meen ons hoef nie die Vader te loof en te prys en te dank op die manier(e) wat Hy verlang nie.

  21. John says:

    Ek het vroeër melding gemaak van ‘n E-Sword module van Woord en Getuienis wat ons graag beskikbaar wil stel aan diegene wat hou daarvan om met die E-Sword Skrifstudie program te werk. Voorheen het ons slegs ‘n module gehad wat met die ouer weergawes van E-Sword versoenbaar was, maar danksy die harde werk van ‘n broer wat graag anoniem wil bly, het ons nou ook ‘n module wat saam met die nuwere weergawes van E-Sword gebruik kan word. Diegene wat in só ‘n module belangstel kan met ons in verbinding tree. Die zip formaat van hierdie module is omtrent 2 MB groot en kan maklik per epos aangestuur word.

  22. cee says:

    I think it is disgusting that you cannot get the 1983 version on the internet unless you want to fill somebody elses pocket with riches. God did not give His word to us to enrich ourselves. He gave it to us as a guide. The way they are selling the bible for personal gain makes me think that the hole story behind the bible is a hoax and was created centuries ago as a money making machine.

  23. Sanet says:


    Stuur asseblief die E-Sword module van Woord en Getuienis asook ‘n elektroniese kopie :nice:  in PDF formaat. Dankie, ek sal dit opreg waardeer.


  24. Theo Helberg says:


    Mag ek ook vra vir ‘n e-sword module van die Woord en Getuienis asb?

    Baie dankie.

  25. Magda Cracknell says:

    Goeienaand John

    Ek wil baie graag naWeg kyk en deurweek… ek gebruik esword en theword vir my studies in Restoration Ministry en sal opregte waardeer as jy die Weg module aanstuur na

    Groete en dank by voorbaat.

    Magda Cracknell

  26. Derick Stevens says:


    Ek het met groot blydskap bogenoemde boodskappe gelees. Kan ek asb ook die volgende aanvra :

    1. E-sword modules (beide Engels en Afrikaans)

    2. PDF (of enige ander elekrtroniese weergawe – beide Engels en Afrikaans)

    Ek het geruime tyd gelede die gedrukte weergawes aangekoop (saam met “Kom uit haar uit my Volk) en sal hierdie elektroniese bywerkings baie waardeer.



  27. Charlet says:

    I just want Woord en getuienis. Where can I buy it?

    • John says:

      Sorry for the late reply, Charlet.  I have been out of town for the past week.  You can buy Woord en Getuienis from us.  Just go to our Online Shop page to find out the costs, payment options etc. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


:nice: :wink: :up: :glad: :ooo: :oops: :lol: more »